Author
Topic: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests (Read 14628 times)

Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used.

I agree with this, and I like it even better on my 7D as a travel lens.

It seems to me that (like the new 35mm f/2 IS) that Canon has produced a lens that compares well to its internal competition (exceeds the 24-105L 24-70L and MK1, is sufficiently short of the 24-70 MKII for fair value), but neglects to consider the competition (in this case, the Tamron). The Tamron comes out looking the greatest in terms of the combination of optics, features, and price.

The same thing is happening to the 35mm f/2 IS. It compares nicely to its predecessor and even the 35L, but the Sigma (and a fairly high price) make it seem a step behind and less of a value as it should be. At the 600-700 range, it would be a great alternative. At the current price, however, the Sigma looks like a far greater value (particularly when you consider that the Sigma comes with both a hood and a NICE case). Likewise, as someone has already pointed out, the 24-70 f/4L would be a great alternative at $1000. As it stands, however, it only reinforces the value of the Tamron and makes those of us who own the 24-105L want to hang onto it.

+1

I couldn't have said it better

This looks like a very good lens, but charging more than 900-1000$ places it in a league where it just doesn't belong. There is a big world outside Canon's offer.

The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.

For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price.

People posting here (gearheads probably with 15 years worth of L lenses) really aren't the target market for this lens.

As a general walkabout lens with macro capabilities which will be good enough for many hobbyists this lens makes a lot of sense compared to the 24-105. Its sharper, has less distortion, hybrid IS and means people don't need to invest a separate macro lens. For someone moving up from a rebel to a 6D this lens would be great. For those who already have the 24-70 f2.8 mark i or ii or the 24-105 along with the 100L or another dedicated macro lens this offers very little unless you really want a two lens setup to go on holiday and take lots of macro pics. A 24-70 (with macro) + 70-200 is a lot more versatile, and will probably get better images than a 24-105 and 100L.

As with other lenses the price will drop in a few months time (see the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii as a reference).

The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.

For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price.

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight. Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.

canon rumors FORUM

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

hmmm

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

+1. Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.

i agree. I liked the 24-105, but I always wanted something a little more compact to make up for the slow aperture. If i'm going to carry something big around, i'd rather have the F2.8. Thus, if this lens was 800ish, it would be a fantastic FF travel lens. I really like the idea of this lens, I just think that Canon is way off base with their prices. L glass is cool.F4 is not cool.$1500 is a crapload of money. For that price, whatever lens I buy better be cool all the way around, not just because it's small and L.

It seem like a good lens. With high iso performance on FF already good as it is, f4 won't be too much of a problem in dim light and the hybrid IS will certainly help a lot. I see this as some sort of 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM compromise in which Canon made it one stop slower in return for lighter weight and IS/macro. I'm hoping to see more reviews so we can be certain of its image quality. With its current price though... it's an epic fail.